Iran’s “Obligations”… and Yours and Mine

It could’ve been a statement directed towards any one of us, really. According to the Associated Press and CBS News, here’s a recent quote:

“’As Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt,’ President Obama said in Wednesday’s State of the Union address. ‘They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.’”

That could just as well be an IRS agent or U.S. marshal talking about Ed and Elaine Brown – or you – or me. Of course, Obama was talking about the Iranian government’s “obligation” to abide by U.N.-backed international sanctions designed to prevent Iranian bureaucrats from getting their hands on fissionable material sufficient to manufacture atomic bombs with. Of course, the U.S. government is spearheading this move through U.N. channels – the controller of the world’s second largest nuclear arsenal, and the only government to have actually used atomic weapons against another (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945). Of the other U.N. “Security Council” members, Russia has the largest stockpile of nukes, followed by China, Great Britain, and France. Israel also has the Bomb, and has the unabashed and politically unquestionable support of the American government via AIPAC and other governmental and economic mechanisms. Pakistan and India have nukes. The U.S. government has placed ICBMs in Turkey under NATO auspices. Is it any wonder that Iranian politicians – tyrannically minded, like all politicians, though they may be – are keen to more heavily arm themselves?

Now let’s have a look at what Hillary Clinton (first First Lady, then Senator, now Secretary of State; isn’t it amazing how multi-talented these political types are?) has to say on the subject:

“’Our efforts to apply pressure on Iran are not meant to punish the Iranian people. They are meant to change the approach the Iranian government has taken toward its nuclear program,’ Clinton said.”

News for Hillary: International sanctions do, in almost all cases, have a deleterious impact on people living under the governments who are the ostensible target of such embargoes. Have a gander at Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, just for starters. Sure those governments are bad (as all governments are), but all such measures achieve is to fuel the determination of such regimes to remain entrenched in power. Meanwhile, these proposed tightening of the screws are going to end up hurting even those who now are standing bravely in opposition to Ahmedinejad’s rule.

In short, government is no cure for government. All that such actions accomplish is to exacerbate tensions and mistrust between people of different cultures, while intensifying their misery. All such ridiculous interferences mean heavier taxation, fewer personal liberties, and ultimately, less safety for all Americans. A laissez-faire free market, without the violent and coercive intervention of government, is all that is necessary to avoid entirely the perceived threats of nuclear destruction bandied about by the statists (politicians and their mindless bureaucratic servants). People from all regions and all cultures don’t like to incinerate their customers and employees – current and prospective – when there is the motivation of unfettered profit and capital gain. With government, such a scenario can hardly exist.

I, like all anarchists, do not consider myself to have any legitimate “obligations” to government. I have only these ones: To respect your life, liberty, and property inviolably; never seeking to control it without your express voluntary consent. And, to bring an end to the barbarism known as Government once and for all time.

Free Markets & Capitalism?
Markets Not Capitalism
Organization Theory
Conscience of an Anarchist